Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« GRITZ Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Zelensky says, f*ck Trump 

By: ribit in GRITZ | Recommend this post (1)
Tue, 04 Mar 25 12:51 AM | 10 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Grits Breakfast of Champeens! 		Msg. 05006 of 05043
(This msg. is a reply to 05003 by De_Composed)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Another key point was that U.S. State Department lawyers made a distinction between "security guarantee" and "security assurance" 

...all the difference of a Kamala Harris Word Salad there.




Avatar

Liberals are like a "Slinky". Totally useless, but somehow ya can't help but smile when you see one tumble down a flight of stairs!


 - - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Zelensky says, f*ck Trump
By: De_Composed in GRITZ
Tue, 04 Mar 25 12:00 AM 		Msg. 05003 of 05043

ribit:

Re: “...Budapest Memorandum or did you forget again?”It's true, I forgot about it in September. My memory's not what it used to be but I didn't forget it this time. Do you remember my response? Here it is again:About the Budapest Memoranda, Wikipedia says:

'The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances comprises three substantially identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary, on 5 December 1994, to provide security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).' ... 'Another key point was that U.S. State Department lawyers made a distinction between "security guarantee" and "security assurance", referring to the security guarantees that were desired by Ukraine in exchange for non-proliferation. "Security guarantee" would have implied the use of military force in assisting its non-nuclear parties attacked by an aggressor (such as Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty for NATO members) while "security assurance" would simply specify the non-violation of these parties' territorial integrity. In the end, a statement was read into the negotiation record that the (according to the U.S. lawyers) lesser sense of the English word "assurance" would be the sole implied translation for all appearances of both terms in all three language versions of the statement.'

So, unfortunately for Ukraine, The memoranda doesn't obligate us to provide military help. But perhaps the United Nations could intimidate Russia with its ability to declare Russia a pariah state . . . which Russia, with its unlimited right to "veto," would promptly reject. (The U.N. sucks.)

Was Ukraine foolish to have entered into such a toothless agreement? Maybe not. After all, the nukes it had were useless. Ukraine had physical possession of them but Russia had the codes. Ukraine didn't have the ability to do much more than sell its nukes to the highest bidder and perhaps find itself on the receiving end of similar (but armed) weapons. It apparently didn't want to do that.

« GRITZ Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next